Balaji Srinivisan wrote an interesting post called “Founding vs. Inherting”.
The idea of founding vs. inheriting is a great premise. People seem to be fine with wealth when the founder works hard and innovates their way to a fortune. Not many people are as enamored with the idea of a spoiled brat inheriting their fortune and sleeping until noon on a Tuesday. I liked Paul Graham’s essay how the 20th century was an aberration, as most of the richest people in the world inherited their wealth (in the 1980s) instead of founding businesses (as the richest people do today).
We should encourage entrepreneurship and want the best and brightest to go into tech and medicine so they can innovate and make the world a better place. Although I really enjoyed the essay and it made me think deeply, I would try to expand or nuance a few arguments.
Innovation in Inheritance
Binary ideas are attractive because they break the world into simple terms. Founding vs. Inheriting. East Coast vs. West Coast. Biggie vs. Tupac. As someone who enjoys writing, I employ this tactic myself to make my ideas stand out more. However, when we break the world into binary categories like this, we can lose distinction and nuance. Founding is great, but responsible stewardship and inheritance of a tradition like the Torah, or United States Constitution is important.
This next portion of his post is insightful:
“After all, most folks who assume political office in the modern US do not have the skills to organize anything like the Federal Reserve or the US Military from scratch, unlike George Washington or Alexander Hamilton.”
I would agree that most of our political leaders today would not have the ability to construct the military or the Federal Reserve from scratch. But the binary view of founding vs. inheriting makes it seem like the inherited institutions are beyond saving. As if it’s a legacy system, let’s just throw it in the trash and move onto something new.
I may be biased as an American, but I believe our form of government started by the Founders has created a great and peaceful world, yes, with some issues. But we should be encouraging the best and brightest to innovate within institutions like the Legislative, Judicial and Executive branches. It may be more difficult for people to become billionaires and call all the shots like a CEO, but bright people in an inherited government is incredibly important work and should be encouraged. Balaji would likely agree that we should figure how to incentivize bright people to put their skills to use in the public sector.
Public Sector is Flawed But Helps People
The next argument was thought provoking, but missing something:
“Where heirs failed, founders succeeded. The internet stayed up. The state couldn’t deliver checks, but Amazon could deliver packages.”
Yes, it was impressive how efficient Amazon after we got hit by the pandemic. I’ve never seen so many Amazon trucks in my neighborhood. However, checks were delivered by the government. Restaurant servers who lost their jobs got the increased unemployment benefits from the government. There were temporary stimulus “stimmy” checks that helped out struggling families, or allowed families to grow their savings which were delivered by the government, not Amazon. Amazon is an impressive company with unmatched logistics, yes. However, the government provided a social safety net that helped needy people during the pandemic, and Amazon did not.
The post was incredibly enjoyable to read and thought provoking. The U.S. government and media are broken, as highlighted by the mismanagement of COVID. However, I don’t think legacy institutions should be thrown away. Instead of spoiled heirs, we should encourage gifted stewards to take the mantle of reforming and transforming our broken institutions. This doesn’t mean Elon Musk should run for senate and abandon going to Mars. But instead, we need some of the innovators to be founders of new political and journalistic reforms within legacy institutions. Both public and private breakthroughs are necessary.
